Any negative press that documents lives being destroyed by a vaccine will obviously have a negative result on sales.

The Mainstream Media Has Censored Almost Any Negative Information Regarding Vaccines

For years now, the mainstream media has censored almost any negative information regarding vaccines in general, and the Gardasil vaccine in particular.

Gardasil, the HPV vaccine produced by Merck, is a huge money maker, and any negative press that documents lives being destroyed by the vaccine will obviously have a negative result on sales.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, has publicly stated that 70% of mainstream media news advertising revenues during non-election years is funded by pharmaceutical companies.

So it is easy to understand the probable reason why the standard rules of investigative journalism are not utilized when reporting vaccine issues, particularly the Gardasil vaccine. Only positive news is allowed – not anything critical.

We saw this on full display at the end of 2013 when then popular daytime television host Katie Couric dared to produce a program regarding the "HPV Vaccine Controversy."

Couric was very careful to make her own personal views known, stating that she was pro-vaccine and that her own daughters received the gardasil HPV vaccine.

But it didn't matter. She was vilified and viciously attacked by the corporate mainstream media to even dare to suggest that there was a "controversy" surrounding the Gardasil vaccine. She interviewed one mother who claimed to have lost her teenage daughter after giving her the Gardasil vaccine.

It was a show that gave both sides of the debate, with the pro-vaccine side more heavily favored, apparently in an attempt to ward off criticisms.

It didn't work. Couric was forced to issue an apology on her show the next week, and she also had to give Dr. Anne Schuchat, Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, dressed in official military attire, air time to promote the standard CDC propaganda about how safe the Gardasil vaccine supposedly is.

Couric's show was canceled for the next season, and some believe her career has never been the same since.

In 2015 the Toronto Star published what was probably one of the best investigative reports ever published in a corporate mainstream media publication about the Gardasil vaccine, but the editors were pressured to remove the article from their website. Health Impact News contacted the journalists who wrote the report, as well as their editor, and offered to publish it on the Health Impact News network, but they declined.

Why did Slate Publish Negative Information about Gardasil at the end of 2017?

In December of 2017 Slate magazine published a report on Gardasil from a Danish reporter titled: What the Gardasil Testing May Have Missed.

Slate is part of the corporate mainstream media. It's Wikipedia entry currently states:

It was created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On December 21, 2004, it was purchased by The Washington Post Company, later renamed the Graham Holdings Company. Since June 4, 2008, Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Graham Holdings Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.

Like other corporate media groups, Slate is religiously pro-vaccine, and spouts the mantra that "the science is settled" when it comes to vaccines, an obvious anti-science statement in itself which resembles religious belief more than anything "scientific."

Here is an example of what you will read about vaccines on Slate:

There are two sides to almost every story, and sometimes we publish both of them. That's true even for science.

But three areas of science are beyond scientific debate even though they are still debated by a lot of people. Evolution and climate change are two.

The other is vaccines.

So if Slate has publicly stated in the past that the science of vaccines is settled and beyond debate, what was the purpose of this report published last month about Gardasil?

First, the topic of Gardasil and especially the injuries it is causing are of great interest to the American public, and causing many millions of readers to seek out information about Gardasil that they are not receiving from their doctors or the corporate media.

As I wrote in my 2017 end of the year report, the Gardasil vaccine issue has been the #1 topic on Health Impact News for several years now, generating millions of page views and capturing more online readers than almost all of our other topics combined.

Much of the critical news regarding the HPV vaccine comes from news sources outside of the U.S., where medical and health officials world-wide are now questioning the safety of the HPV vaccine. In Colombia, so severe are the deaths and injuries due to the HPV vaccine that parents have protested by demonstrating in the streets, and shutting down schools.

Negative press regarding the HPV vaccine can be found in France (Merck's Former Doctor Predicts that Gardasil will Become the Greatest Medical Scandal of All Time), Spain, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, the UK, India, and many others.

So it is no surprise that the Slate article also drew heavily from reports and sources outside of the U.S. in writing their report.

It is also safe to assume that the corporate-sponsored mainstream media is understanding that they are losing the information battle regarding Gardasil as they attempt to keep censoring anything negative, and have apparently taken a new approach to capitalize on the amount of Internet traffic the topic is generating, in an attempt to continue controlling public opinions on the topic and preserve sales of the vaccine.

So while the Slate piece questions some of problems with the clinical trials used to approve Gardasil, they barely scratch the surface regarding all of the corruption and problems surrounding this vaccine. Most of that information needs to be obtained from alternative media sources like Health Impact News, or the foreign press.

The Slate piece starts out with this statement: "There's no evidence that the HPV vaccine causes serious harm..." To even suggest that one should question whether or not they should receive this vaccine or give it to their children is not a purpose of this article, and to do so obviously would hurt sales.

In addition to this statement, there is a link to an editorial piece by "Slate's science editor," Susan Matthews, which starts with this statement: "The benefits of the HPV vaccine still outweigh any potential harms" and her own opinion (no real science cited to back up her opinions) that "to my eye, the potential benefits greatly outweigh the potential harms."

She then prints statements that are actually contradicted by true science in reports outside of the corporate media, and thereby loses credibility by writing: "Gardasil has been shown to effectively prevent HPV, which is very likely to reduce your chance of cervical cancer. Gardasil has not been proven to have any significant side effects."

The corporate media knows they are losing the battle to control and censor the narrative surrounding vaccines in general, and Gardasil in particular, so this appears to be their latest attempt to acknowledge that there are some problems, and yet continue recommending the vaccine to the public so sales do not suffer.

Matthews even admits that this is the purpose of her editorial: "there's a (legitimate) fear that this story could be used to bolster a case that vaccines are bad and untrustworthy. And bolstering that case could have real and serious ramifications for public health if it leads to more people not getting vaccinated."

Having covered the Gardasil issue for years now, I am confident that anything leading to less people being vaccinated by Gardasil would actually improve public health. But it would obviously hurt Gardasil sales, and potentially sales of other vaccines.

Medical Doctor in India Warns Public Against Dangers of "Dubious" HPV Vaccine

One might think that the Slate piece would have solicited a response from the medical community in the U.S. But in my search in the corporate U.S. media for reactions to the Slate article, the only references I could find were to Susan Matthews' editorial and comments.

Outside the U.S., however, one can read this commentary by a medical doctor in India: "Dubious vaccine for cervical cancer."

Dr. Jacob Puliyel is the Head of Pediatrics, St Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, and a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.

He writes:

There is currently no scientific study that shows the vaccine reduces cervical cancer in the women who are vaccinated. The efficacy of the vaccine against cancer is unknown.

So we have a vaccine programme we don't know will work to reduce cancer, that was poorly tested to ignore symptoms of CFS and which siphons off money that could be used in programmes that could save many more lives. Yet, like disoriented moth to the flickering light from a fire, we will dive for it. (Source.)

Facts About Gardasil the Corporate Mainstream Media would not Dare to Report

Here are some more facts about Gardasil that you will probably never read in the U.S. corporate media, but that those of us in the alternative media have been publishing for years.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is tasked with vaccine safety, and yet it is also the largest purchaser of vaccines, spending over $4 billion annually to purchase vaccines.

Julie Gerberding was in charge of the CDC from 2002 to 2009, which includes the years the FDA approved the Merck Gardasil vaccine.

Soon after she took over the CDC, she reportedly completely overhauled the agency's organizational structure, and many of the CDC's senior scientists and leaders either left or announced plans to leave. Some have claimed that almost all of the replacements Julie Gerberding appointed had ties to the vaccine industry.

Gerberding resigned from the CDC on January 20, 2009, and took over as the president of Merck's Vaccine division, a 5 billion dollar a year operation, and the supplier of the largest number of vaccines the CDC recommends (article here).

It was reported in 2015 that Dr. Gerberding, now the executive vice president of pharmaceutical giant Merck, sold 38,368 of her shares in Merck stock for $2,340,064.32. She still holds 31,985 shares of the company's stock, valued at about $2 million.

Besides examples like this showing a clear conflict of interest between government agencies tasked with overseeing public health and vaccine safety and pharmaceutical companies, the National Institute of Health also holds patents on vaccines such as Gardasil, and earns royalties from the sale of vaccines.

Dr. Eric Suba tried to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out how much money the National Institute of Health (NIH) earned from the sale of Gardasil, but they refused to report the amount of revenue the government earns from this vaccine (although not denying they do earn royalties).

2017 Mexican Study Show Industry's Own Skewed Statistics Prove the HPV Vaccine is not Safe

A study from Mexico published in 2017 might very well be the reason Slate was chosen to publish an article about Gardasil that was critical.

It was published in the journal Clinical Rheumatology and titled: Serious adverse events after HPV vaccination: a critical review of randomized trials and post-marketing case series.

This study received no press coverage from the corporate media, but we covered it:

International Study: An Honest Look at the Statistics Shows that the HPV Vaccine is Not Safe

The study was conducted by doctors from the Rheumatology Department and the Immunology Department at the National Institute of Cardiology in Mexico City.

The results of their study found:

The lack of inert placebo in the vast majority of prelicensure HPV vaccine randomized studies

The study found the statistics regarding the new Gardasil 9 particularly troubling, as the statistics suggest that severe harm is suffered every 140 injections, and the number needed to vaccinate in order to see any perceived benefits to the vaccine is 1757. (Full article here.)

The corporate mainstream media is certainly not trustworthy when it comes to the issue of vaccines, when they publish a religious-like belief that "the science is settled" regarding vaccines and take the position that vaccines should not even be debated for the sake of "public health."

Not only is the corporate media censoring vaccine research, they are deliberately publishing "fake news" and untruths regarding vaccines.

They want to incorrectly frame the debate surrounding vaccines as being between uninformed parents on one side criticizing vaccines, and informed scientists and doctors on the other side assuring us that they are completely safe and effective.

This is a false premise to the vaccine debate. The fact is that there are very many doctors and scientists who question vaccines, and are opposed to mandatory vaccinations.

The agenda of Big Pharma and their compliant corporate media is obvious: they want mandatory vaccines to maintain and increase their vaccine products, and so they will continue to misrepresent the debate and try to convince the public that all doctors believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

This premise is completely false.

So when you see an article in the corporate media like this one recently published on Slate, don't be fooled. The purpose is nothing less than mandatory and forced vaccinations for the supposed purpose of "public health."

This admission, however, that not all is well with Gardasil might very well spell doom for Merck and the HPV vaccine.

Brian Shilhavy is the Managing Editor and Founder of Health Impact News. He has a BA in Bible and Greek from Moody Bible Institute, and an MA in Applied Linguistics from Northeastern Illinois University.Brian Shilhavy is the only writer who writes in all 6 content areas. He is the founder of Tropical Traditions, the first company to import Virgin Coconut Oil from the Philippines to the United States in 2001, and start the modern day Coconut Oil Revolution back when saturated fats, and coconut oil in particular, were demonized by the mainstream media.